7/25/2002
Ken Garfield
Columnist
Charlotte Observer
Dear Ken,
Thank you for bringing up such an important topic - sexual images bombard not only our children, but all of us. I've been struggling with this very issue, and am caught a bit off guard by my internal conflict.
The response you published from reader Carey Shipp contained some of my first reactions to this issue. I think the Europeans have a much healthier view of the human body. I would guess their view is more the rule than the exception in the world.
While devout, I do not consider myself prudish. I've always found the European acceptance and appreciation for the human body refreshing. But we are not Europeans. I was born and raised in the South. Yes, even Atlanta was somewhat "conservative", but nothing compared to Charlotte! I cringe to think what more "progressive" cities endure in sexualized media.
This Spring, when I chaperoned a school trip to Raleigh, my son's 4th grade class went to a mall for dinner. We were *inundated* with images I would term "soft porn". I felt very out-of-date (for being shocked) and out-of-touch for not knowing the extent of advertiser/retailers' desperation. Bad market or no, it's a bit much.
I have been struggling to raise my three children to appreciate the beauty of one of G-d's most precious and mysterious gifts - our bodies. Yet our emphasis on sexuality is somehow different from the Eurpoean model. Maybe it is a reflection of our national schziophrenia around this issue that makes the advertising, movies and even sitcoms seem so dirty.
We want to teach responsible sexual behavior to our kids, but we can't seem to agree on a good national health program to be taught in schools. We want them to abstain, but we are uncomfortable talking about (much less providing information on) masturbation. Yet we are trying to channel one of the strongest urges known to any living thing - procreation. It's hard wired. And of all the animal kingdom, only man and dolphins engage in this activity for "fun".
Breastfeeding is another indicator of our collective disconnect. We want women to nurse their children - hundreds of studies verify it's superiority to formula feeding - but we don't want mothers to feed their children in public. A *breast* might be exposed, and isn't that "sexual"!? Not to the child, but apparently to nearly everyone else.
Yet this debate isn't really about sex. Sex is for adults. It's about the sexualizing of our children, especially young girls. Just take a quick glance in clothing stores at the revealing selections for young girls. I'm certain my mother wasn't concerned about the tightness of my clothes when I was in third grade! I find myself drawing firm boundaries with my 9 year old (and this has been going on for several years) because she sees not only a few ads and sitcoms, but also her friends dressed revealingly.
We collectively abhor child pornography, yet endure our boys and girls being rushed through childhood and dumped into the land of adult matters. Children are already the victims of so much abuse of power - the death of Samantha _____ was an act of violence using sexuality to satisfy a despicable man's sick need for power. And look at the disaster the Catholic Church has created, as a result of denying sexuality and encouraging secrecy around the issue. Both events are less about sex and much more about the abuse of power.
So what can we do? I don't take my children to malls (maybe once a year). We don't have cable TV (and manage just fine without it). The kids watch very limited TV, (mostly public television, rented (and screened) movies and some cartoons). They use the internet very little and they are supervised when they get online.
But I also let my 3 year old run around nude as much as she wants - sometimes even in public places. All my children have done this until culturally imposed modesty kicked in. (In Sweden bathing suits for young children is considered laughable and a waste of money. I bet African children don't gawk at women's breasts in tribes where topless is normal. Nor do the young girls suddenly get "modest".)
We visit the Mint Museum two to three times a year. Next month we are going to Boston, and we will stop off in New York where we will make a point to see the gorgeous paintings and sculptures of their museums as well. We will enjoy displays of glorious art - including nudes. Isn't all art supposed to be sensual?
And we will, eventually, help the children make this very important distinction: Sensuality is a lovely, warm acknowledgement of our humanity. It is simple - a hug, a breeze, a melody, a delicious dish. Sexuality is equally powerful, but very complex and is should be reserved for adults. Sex has consequences and is a privelge and a responsiblity. Sensuality is a celebration of what carries our souls around. Both are gifts of the senses.
I refuse to be held to some Puritan ethic of denial (that sex is somehow dirty). Sexuality need not - should not - be a closet topic. And yet I also refuse to let "The Media" (TV, movies, advertisements, radio, etc.) raise my children - on any topic - because they talk / show too much of it.
So one more thing I do to protect my childrens' childhood : we talk. We discuss what they see on TV ("What do you think they are trying to sell in this ad? What are they using to get your attention? Would you buy the product? Why?"), in the movies and out there in the big, wide world.
Perhaps education is the best defense.
When will I let my daughter wear revealing clothes?
Vicki Jones
Mint Hill, NC
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
afterwords:
Reading this 18 months later, I like this piece, but I'm afraid I sound too willing to let my daughters dress scantily. I'm surprisingly restrictive, yet open on this topic. No overly tight clothes, no excessive sex on movies or in magazines. Innocence is another topic for another day:)